Debunking 'Free Energy' pseudoscience

A friend of mine, who is otherwise quite rational in his perspectives on reality, has lately become obsessed with the idea that infinite sources of energy are available to humans that are being repressed by science and major energy producers.

From what I surmised they consist of a narrator explaining some basic observable properties of electromagnetism, then finding other visible examples of toroidal shapes in the cosmos to to infer that some hidden fundamental force is at work.

It's obviously junk, and contrary to all the basic laws of physics, thermodynamics, but I lack the specific knowledge to explain to him that this stuff arises from wishful thinking and conspiratorial paranoia. His counter is of course that I'm being dogmatic and that science operates in paradigm shifts that shatter the status quo.... which of course it only rarely does, and almost never comes from outside the establishment.

Help me clearly and plainly articulate the impossibility of free energy, please!

The simple answer to someone making a claim like that is "get back to me when your house runs on it". Until they can cut their electricity and heating/cooling bills to 0, it's easy to argue that it's fluff. Let them know that if they can do that, then you'll offer them a large cut of the savings to install the same for you. Further, if they can do that, you'll invest your life's savings in their enterprise.

Sorry OP, but you can't just believe everything your science teacher tells you. Matter and energy are far more complex than physics can explain. For example, did you know that the universe is full of invisible energy, and over 90% of all energy is wasted? This energy is floating away from us as we sit! Scientists call it "dark energy", but they have been unable to explain how or why it works. If we could create a machine that just captures all the energy it releases, it would have so much energy that it could power 10 of itself. So far, conventional science has failed us, which is why some scientists are turning to unconventional theories of energy. For example, the "periodicity theory" states that energy is just a periodic function, like a sine wave. By combining energy from different sources, we can amplify the function. Then by passing the function through a slit, like the center of an off-axis torus, we can purify the energy, filtering out all frequencies out of phase with the hole. With enough amplification and purification, the energy can enter the visible spectrum, which is the first step toward harnessing it. The next step is capturing visible energy, something a number of researchers are working on. There's a deep connection between energy and magnetism, which is why so many of the energy devices they are testing use magnets. The magnets must be arranged in just the right way so that the sine wave pushes them back and forth in phase with the rotation of the magnets about a central axis. Then the magnetic force can power a generator. We still don't understand how magnets work so scientists need to try many arrangements, but they're getting closer and closer. You may not believe me, but it's just a matter of time: I saw it on the Discovery Channel!

Sorry OP, but you can't just believe everything your science teacher tells you. Matter and energy are far more complex than physics can explain. For example, did you know that the universe is full of invisible energy, and over 90% of all energy is wasted? This energy is floating away from us as we sit! Scientists call it "dark energy", but they have been unable to explain how or why it works. If we could create a machine that just captures all the energy it releases, it would have so much energy that it could power 10 of itself. So far, conventional science has failed us, which is why some scientists are turning to unconventional theories of energy. For example, the "periodicity theory" states that energy is just a periodic function, like a sine wave. By combining energy from different sources, we can amplify the function. Then by passing the function through a slit, like the center of an off-axis torus, we can purify the energy, filtering out all frequencies out of phase with the hole. With enough amplification and purification, the energy can enter the visible spectrum, which is the first step toward harnessing it. The next step is capturing visible energy, something a number of researchers are working on. There's a deep connection between energy and magnetism, which is why so many of the energy devices they are testing use magnets. The magnets must be arranged in just the right way so that the sine wave pushes them back and forth in phase with the rotation of the magnets about a central axis. Then the magnetic force can power a generator. We still don't understand how magnets work so scientists need to try many arrangements, but they're getting closer and closer. You may not believe me, but it's just a matter of time: I saw it on the Discovery Channel!

Wow... I think we got pretty much all of the usual suspects in there except for pyramid power. Kudos to you, a true crackpot couldn't have done better!

Help me clearly and plainly articulate the impossibility of free energy, please!

Your friend seems to hold some highly irrational beliefs. It's very difficult to change the basis for those.

I know someone who can easily recite various geological and astronomical facts and figures (Geologist, IIRC) and seems rather adept in both realms.

They also believe that their HS friend's father invented the 100mph carburetor, that was subsequently bought by "the oil companies" and quickly hidden away from public view. There are a few other, similarly absurd (and unlikely) beliefs, held by himself and his wife, that they've shared here and there. In their view, they're "in the know", and most others are "sheeple".

Being otherwise rational doesn't have a necessary bearing on one's (deeply held and emotionally anchored) irrational beliefs.

Just ask your friend to stop, or delete the emails. I wouldn't spend too much time on it. Unless it's an absolute anomaly, in an otherwise "rational* worldview", it will likely prove futile.

*"Rational" isn't the best descriptor, because most of us act "rationally", within the limits of our individual worldviews and knowledge, but you get the idea.

His counter is of course that I'm being dogmatic and that science operates in paradigm shifts that shatter the status quo....

Asimov on the relativity of wrong. I picked that little essay up from another thread here in the obs, it makes rather excellently the point that new physics can't simply invalidate old physics as it applies to the things we are already familiar with and have observed. A new theory that attempts to invalidate existing theory in a domain that already has mountains of experimental evidence backing it up, doesn't happen.

A new theory can't simply fly in the face of thermodynamics without explaining how it can still reproduce all of the results of thermodynamics under all of the previously observed conditions in which it has been demonstrated to be eminently valid.

His counter is of course that I'm being dogmatic and that science operates in paradigm shifts that shatter the status quo

Science has NEVER advanced like this and he is lying his ass off.

It advances steadily and each new discovery must incorporate or extend the last. One cannot develop a new theory of gravity without including General Relativity, because GR works! GR had to include Newtonian Universal Gravity, because that worked.

We can't suddenly discover that gravity is twice as strong because gravity is not twice as strong, but there's nothing preventing us discovering gravity is twice as strong at some quantum scale we've never before measured - this would extend the theory, not replace it.

We can't suddenly discover that the spectrum of the sun is actually made of orang-utans, because it isn't, but we could discover spectral lines in the microwave region where nobody's really looked before and we can't yet explain, which could lead to an expansion of our knowledge of the Sun - But it will never be made of orang-utans.

New theories must expand our knowledge, they cannot prove old knowledge wrong if that old knowledge is backed by observation. If the observer claims his new theory shows the sky is made of apples, then established and known observations (not necessarily the theory of Rayleigh Scattering) show that the observer is very likely wrong.

This is the "paradigm shifts" junk, claiming that gravity is twice as strong, the sky is made of apples and that the Sun is made of orang-utans.

To the lay public, Science can sometimes seem to operate in so-called paradigm shifts.

IME, textbooks often treat it this way as well, though I suppose that could be lumped under "lay public." It's a bit easier to think of things in terms of key movers/shakers instead of nudges and prods - not just for science, one sees this is history classes as well, for example.

There's nothing wrong with the word paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts happen in science, as bluloo points out. They don't generally happen over night, but they can happen on a time scale as small as a few years.

The problem is with thinking that old results are invalidated by the shift. We may interpret things differently, but the results are still the results. Reality is still king, as hat says. Ultimately all theories must bow to observation. The start of one of these paradigm shifts is often when existing theory fails to match observation (the ultraviolet catastrophe, for example).

There is no indication, whatsoever, that the laws of thermodynamics are failing to match observation. They are upheld by such a monumentally large body of experimental evidence, that any corner case you might hope to carve out for your new theory would have to be absurdly obscure.

[...]In their view, they're "in the know", and most others are "sheeple".[...]

And to "fix" a conspiracy theorist you really have to fix this, because this is their underlying motivation. It's not really about "free energy" or "the OneWorlders" or "Roswell" or "the Moon hoax" or whatever. It's about how they think about themselves.

You'll notice that many (by no means all, but many) of these people just don't amount to much IRL, or even if they do, they have some self-esteem problems. Reality is that they are but one of the great unwashed masses whom they despise. And of course, they really really don't want to be. Believing themselves to be among those who "know what's really going on" (hence "better than just about everyone else") is how they get a feeling of self-worth... how they define themselves. "I am part of the real inner circle."

So if you challenge the belief, you are attacking their ego, and their sense of their (very special) place in the world. Good luck with that.

[...]In their view, they're "in the know", and most others are "sheeple".[...]

And to "fix" a conspiracy theorist you really have to fix this, because this is their underlying motivation. It's not really about "free energy" or "the OneWorlders" or "Roswell" or "the Moon hoax" or whatever. It's about how they think about themselves.

You'll notice that many (by no means all, but many) of these people just don't amount to much IRL, or even if they do, they have some self-esteem problems. Reality is that they are but one of the great unwashed masses whom they despise. And of course, they really really don't want to be. Believing themselves to be among those who "know what's really going on" (hence "better than just about everyone else") is how they get a feeling of self-worth... how they define themselves. "I am part of the real inner circle."

So if you challenge the belief, you are attacking their ego, and their sense of their (very special) place in the world. Good luck with that.

It's not only about self-perception. It's the underlying worldview and psychology, that lies at the root of our beliefs. Not much you can do to (easily) change it, unfortunately. (For better or worse, something like this is also the basis for much of the current partisan divide, and why efforts to mitigate it have mostly failed.)

Short answer: don't answer. Ignore the idiot, life is short and arguing with mentally ill (ie paranoid) people is a waste of time.

If you must debate, do it by e-mail correspondence where you can quote him bit by bit and construct a timeline of argument. Sooner or later, probably sooner, you'll track the discussion to a point where he can't or won't progress further without responding to your points - which he won't or can't - and you call it time. But, like I say, life is short.

Just tell him you can cure his beliefs with some 5th-dimensional quantum healing crystals.

Btw, just out of curiousity, did he at any point drivel on about one-way magnetic fields? A simple response to that is to point out that a field is a gradient, ie a slope, and slopes can't just slope 'one way' - hence one-way fields don't exist. Whether he'll follow that I can't say.

Ah, I went through a phase where I argued at length with morons on youtube. In the end, I lost, my spirit broken, my soul crushed, my life drained and my sanity cracked.

I just want to add that not all people that talk about "alternative theories" fall into the "want to feel better than all other dumb people" category. Sometimes you will find intelligent people that are just not educated in science and are really interested in advancing their own horizons. In such a case a discussion and some teaching does indeed make sense.

I have a very good friend who is educated in fine arts and has nothing to do with natural sciences at all. He is also quite interested in Eastern Philosophy (Dao, Buddhism) and as such of course prone to get in touch with a lot of esoterics. As I studied physics I am naturally his first address when it comes to discuss alternate science. What I did in the first few discussions was to point out some key parts of scientific thinking, mainly: "can it be proven wrong by experiment". And then "are the experiments conducted in way that will provide reproducible results".

Many of the obscure theories involve arguments in the line of: "it cannot be proven by experiment because it relies on an effect that is unmeasurable by our technology" - to which I alsways say: "how is this any different than saying a Wizard did it?"

If you can get people to understand what the scientific method makes work (observation, experiments, falsifiable theories, ...) and can make them see that the obscure claim is missing all of it, it is worth to discuss. If they cannot agree that scientific standards shall be applied to a scientific discussion, then well, save your time and effort.

I've been trying to find a way to do something similar about a fellow videogame developer... he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world. Now of course the issue number 1 is that, unlike usual targets such as cold fusion, you can't really point at any laws of nature or anything.

I've been trying to find a way to do something similar about a fellow videogame developer... he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world. Now of course the issue number 1 is that, unlike usual targets such as cold fusion, you can't really point at any laws of nature or anything.

You can't just point at any laws of nature for cold fusion, either. Cold fusion isn't a "free energy" scheme. It doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That said, we don't have any (reasonable) theoretical models that predict cold fusion, either. So far every case of somebody claiming to have developed it has been shown to be either fraud, calorimetry errors, chemical (not nuclear) reactions, or other types of bunk. That doesn't make it impossible though. Free energy devices are bunk of a much higher order.

So yeah, we can't prove that the robot apocalypse isn't coming, and we can't prove that cold fusion is impossible. Even if we could absolutely disprove these things though, some people would continue believing in them anyway, inventing all manner of conspiracy theory to explain why the establishment wants you to believe they've been disproven, or whatever.

That kind of thinking isn't always beyond repair - but attacking it head on isn't generally useful, because you'll get filed into the conspirator bin and discounted. Instead, a general approach of trying to teach them critical thinking skills is called for, assuming that they are at all open to self improvement. If they aren't at all open, you just give up on them and save yourself the headache. If they are, my favorite book on how to think properly is Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. I recommend it to anybody who is remotely interested in learning how to think. There's no reason for me to re-invent the wheel and try to work them through it myself when Carl Sagan has already done it better.

Once they've learned how to think, it is up to them to apply it to their various belief systems. That's not an easy step either, and a lot of people will continue to doublethink their way around their previously held beliefs, even though they're applying proper thinking in considering new beliefs. If you try to force them to shine that light on beliefs they're emotionally invested in, before they are ready, it will probably just harden them to ever considering it. You have to let them come to it on their own. Providing the tools they need is about as much as you can do for them.

I've been trying to find a way to do something similar about a fellow videogame developer... he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world. Now of course the issue number 1 is that, unlike usual targets such as cold fusion, you can't really point at any laws of nature or anything.

You can't just point at any laws of nature for cold fusion, either. Cold fusion isn't a "free energy" scheme. It doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. That said, we don't have any (reasonable) theoretical models that predict cold fusion, either. So far every case of somebody claiming to have developed it has been shown to be either fraud, calorimetry errors, chemical (not nuclear) reactions, or other types of bunk. That doesn't make it impossible though. Free energy devices are bunk of a much higher order.

Yes, but I can still point out lack of any radiation, and basically explain just how much more than "cold fusion" is claimed - there's very notable energy without neutrons, without gamma, etc etc.

Quote:

So yeah, we can't prove that the robot apocalypse isn't coming, and we can't prove that cold fusion is impossible. Even if we could absolutely disprove these things though, some people would continue believing in them anyway, inventing all manner of conspiracy theory to explain why the establishment wants you to believe they've been disproven, or whatever.

Yep... well robopocalypse is even worse because it is utterly non-falsifiable. Even when prophecy fails these guys will resort to "anthropics" (along the lines of saying that "we wouldn't be having this conversation if it happened").

Quote:

That kind of thinking isn't always beyond repair - but attacking it head on isn't generally useful, because you'll get filed into the conspirator bin and discounted. Instead, a general approach of trying to teach them critical thinking skills is called for, assuming that they are at all open to self improvement. If they aren't at all open, you just give up on them and save yourself the headache. If they are, my favorite book on how to think properly is Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. I recommend it to anybody who is remotely interested in learning how to think. There's no reason for me to re-invent the wheel and try to work them through it myself when Carl Sagan has already done it better.

Once they've learned how to think, it is up to them to apply it to their various belief systems. That's not an easy step either, and a lot of people will continue to doublethink their way around their previously held beliefs, even though they're applying proper thinking in considering new beliefs. If you try to force them to shine that light on beliefs they're emotionally invested in, before they are ready, it will probably just harden them to ever considering it. You have to let them come to it on their own. Providing the tools they need is about as much as you can do for them.

Yes, that's generally the case... the severe problem there though is that they've been "learning how to think" from the same bunch that's supposedly saving the world from robopocalypse. The idea there is that paying to save the world from robopocalypse is the rational thing to do, and everyone else's being irrational, of course (they call themselves "rationalists" on top of that, run "rationality workshops" and such). And the scepticism is flipped backwards - being sceptical that robopocalypse won't happen. They recently spun off a medical start-up which on its FAQ page, among other travesties against science, measures CAT scans in Hiroshima survivor doses (being a couple orders of magnitude off about it, as you'd expect), when making a point of how allegedly regular medicine does needless CAT scans. The pitch is that startup describes itself as 'evidence based medicine' and the idea is that it is so much more rational than usual medicine.

Robot apocalypse would be rather difficult to falsify, but in principle it is falsifiable. All you have to do is kill all humans.

It probably goes without saying, but don't use robots for the killing of all the humans.

Haha, a good one.

Quote:

edit: I suppose there are ways of phrasing the robot apocalypse hypothesis that are sufficiently vague as to be unfalsifiable.

Like cold fusion, the robot apocalypse itself is not even the small fraction of the improbability... It also has to be brought about by the first team to build an AI, the AI has to improve it's intelligence becoming dramatically superhuman in weeks, the AI has to be sufficiently motivated and hostile... etc. And of course giving your money to these folks saves the world.

he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world.

he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world.

How does one even do that?

Well, you start out intending to kill Miles Dyson, but you end up convincing him to help you blow up Cyberdine Systems instead.

he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world.

The base amount already filled in when I navigated to the page was a monthly donation of $1k... wtf is up with people and having too much money apparently? If I had a terrible need to lose money I'd just throw it off a bridge.

he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world.

How does one even do that?

By making a world saving AI before those scientists kill us all, of course.

The field of AI, outside the software that actually does things (e.g. self driving cars) is utterly full of cranks. To the point of overlap with free energy pseudoscience. Even Randell Mills (who's not related to the ones I am talking of), better known here for hydrinos, wrote a paper on AI.

he's concerned that robot apocalypse is coming (as in, skynet) and is donating a huge fraction of his income to avert it. To a bunch of uneducated and half-educated crackpots, so the crackpots can save the world.

The base amount already filled in when I navigated to the page was a monthly donation of $1k... wtf is up with people and having too much money apparently? If I had a terrible need to lose money I'd just throw it off a bridge.

That's how they roll. One of their former presidents now runs this medical startup , notable for asking 5000$ for this kind of generic report on insomnia (personalized medicine: have a guy with Eagle Scout for credentials google up insomnia personally for you). Otherwise notable for crap like "One million children every year have had unnecessary CT scans, which risks exposing them to radiation levels up to those experienced by survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. [xlv]" (source full of other alarmist BS as well).

"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." ~Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington

few highlighs: as before, you have to supply external electrical powers to heating resistors to run the thing (not self sustained), using "industry trade secret waveform". Claimed 2000W of extra heat from <1g loose powder inside a contraption that is poorly thermally conductive. (I.e. no way you can get that heat out without it melting and vaporizing).